Mornings program presenter Raf Epstein asked why the documents could not be made public.

Epstein: I don't understand why you can't tell me whether or not there was written communication before you made the decision?

Fifield: Raf, I'm not endeavouring to be difficult here …

Epstein: Perhaps I should ask you if it's that you can't or you won't. Is it that you won't answer?

Fifield: It is not unusual that in the context of the preparation of budget measures that there isn't correspondence between the Government and stakeholders.

Epstein: Who made the decision to give the $30 million?

Fifield: It was a decision of the Government, it was a decision of the Cabinet, it was something which was determined as part of the process for the last budget.

Last month a Freedom of Information (FOI) request filed by ABC Radio Melbourne's Mornings program, seeking correspondence between Foxtel and the Communications Department, was declined on the basis of that such documents "do not exist".

A subsequent FOI request to the Department of the Treasury found six documents "that fall within the scope" of the same request.

However all were refused as they were "Cabinet documents, exempt under section 34 of the Act".

Mr Fifield said the decision to fund Fox Sports was part of a media reform package, which included a clamp down on gambling advertising during live sports.

He praised Fox Sports for broadcasting the bulk of women's sport in Australia, saying they covered 70 per cent of women's sport.

"We recognise that the free-to-air TV operators had the opportunity to offset some revenue losses against the licence fee reduction part of the package," Mr Fifield said.

"But we also recognise that subscription TV has a different operating environment. They don't pay licence fees and therefore they don't have the same offset opportunity.

"What we as a government didn't want to see happen was that the effects of a decision in one part of the package, such as the gambling ad restrictions, would be to the detriment of women's sport coverage on subscription TV."

The decision has been the subject of a social media uproar, newspaper editorials and a Mad as Hell skit, lampooning the transparency of the deal.

Commentator Stephen Mayne last month noted the $30 million grant came at the same time as licence fee cuts for the free-to-air networks.

"My best guess would be that because the free-to-air networks were all getting a licence fee cut in the budget and the Government wants to keep sweet with all of the media, that they didn't want to have an enemy in the Murdochs," he said.